114 Comments

This issue will always be controversial, as arguments will always involve hypothetical what-ifs. Did the bomb save lives? Would Japan have surrendered soon anyway, or would the US have needed to launch a land invasion of the home islands? Would the Soviets have gotten involved, perhaps dividing Japan similar to Germany/Korea? Ultimately, nobody knows, and arguments over whether it was right or wrong will just go in circles.

When I see films of the aftermath - the devastation, the burns, that one little girl shivering - the "we did it to save lives" argument sounds so empty. May God have mercy on us for what we do to each other.

When I see films of the aftermath - the devastation, the burns, that one little girl shivering - the "we did it to save lives" argument sounds so empty. May God have mercy on us for what we do to each other.

I agree that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most controversial decisions made by President Truman during his tenure as our President. The outcome of the Atomic Bomb on the people of Japan was devastating, and continues to the present. Whether or not the end of the Pacific War would have been prolonged had the United States not dropped both Atomic Bombs on Japan is an historical question that while important, most likely can never be answered to all parties satisfaction.
I would suggest that the more relevant lesson for all parties is that all nations should do their utmost to avoid conflicts which involve the potential for nuclear engagement. Since most conflicts do not originally start out as potential "world wars", and since many more nations in today's world either have direct access to nuclear weapons, or can purchase the materials needed to create "weapons of mass destruction", extreme caution must be taken when countries engage themselves in disputes.
Thank you very much.
Mark Kazuo Bradley
Honolulu, Hawaii.

Firstly as an American I believe that the use of the A-bombs was the right thing to do at the time. We were tired of the war and needed it to end. We had the Soviets to worry about. It was a quick solution. Back then bombng entire cities
was the norm, we were doing it to both Germany and Japan.
But at he same time I believe that their use was the worst thing that human being have ever done to each other and
pray that it never ever comes to that again. Anyone who talks about the use of nuclear weapons lightly is a fool.
I agree that this A-bomb thing should be removed from the airshow. Airshows display flying sklills and vintage aircraft,
but they are not in the context of killing people, past or present. And they should not be.

@sensei258 and im sure youd been as equally shocked if there were photos of the suffering the japanese imperial army did to the people of Asia when they invaded. War is Hell, the best way to stop a war is not start one in the first place. Im sure if Japan and Germany could have forseen the suffering they would have brought to there peoples they never would have started WWII.

the thing I find strange is that people are so shocked over the A bombings, but the earlier fire bombings of Japanese cities actually produced more casulties (1million est) than Hiroshima/Nagasaki combined. conventional weapons killed many more Japanese than the A bombs by far. If the US had to launch a ground invasion of Japan to make her surrender the death toll on both sides would have enormous (est allies dead 1-1.2million, est Japanese 5million)
so was the A bombings justified, Hiroshima absolutely, although Nagasaki was not in my opinion.

Much better than celebrating nuclear death and disease. As Ron Rosenbaum and Cai Guo Qiang point out in an article in the April issue of Smithsonian, "With nuclear weapons there is a constant preservation of its effects... nuclear isotpes persist in emitting poisonous radiation for many lifetimes of half lives."

wtf "if there were photos of the suffering" of the suffering Japan inflicted. There are public displays in places like the Peace Museum in Osakajokoen, but you are right that more people being exposed to past atrocities are a step towards the goal of preventing wars.

@yoyogipark, considering the atomic bombs were created only three weeks before use, it is questionable that emperor Hirohito knew that. He would have known about the napalm firebombing of numerous cities, but was he able to read US gov and military leaders minds on the nuke plans? I would have to speculate no.

How true. I agree with this totally and pray that the world never has to experience anything like it again. Amen.

When I see films of the aftermath - the devastation, the burns, that one little girl shivering - the "we did it to save lives" argument sounds so empty. May God have mercy on us for what we do to each other.

Don't take this wrong here please, that little girl shivering that you refer to was not from either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it came from an even more devastating battle than Hiroshima and Nagasaki COMBINED.

The Battle of Okinawa......look at about the 1 minute part of the link to the video below here. It is a picture that is forever locked in my mind about the horrors and aftermath of war.

Good for us for canceling this event. It is hard to think of anything stupider than the image of people on bleachers doublefisting deepfried food as they chortle at those wacky WWII nuclear bombs. The world is still in grave danger from nuclear technology, including even supposedly benign electric power generation. What benefit would a nuketacular airshow have for exiled survivors of the Fukushima nightmare!

Notice how there is never any mention of the Allied firebombing of the German city of Dresden, which killed 100,000 civilians. My father was a bombardier in one of the Lancaster bombers that participated in that firestorm. He says the aircrews were told the lie that it was a military target. That experience caused him to exile himself from his family, and the souls of those he killed that day haunted him the rest of his life. Those seeking to glorify war and weapons of war are insane.

Who cares about what the historians speculate. The history is that the bombs were dropped and the war ended a few days later....period! These airshows are a gathering of 'Warbirds', re-enacting historic events. I have also seen re-enactments of the Pearl Harbor attack. I go to airshows to see the planes, not get involved in a debate.

Showing the "spectacle" of war without the "consequences" of war could be described as irresponsible at best. This event is misguided in my very humble view. The Smithsonian museum also missed a great opportunity when it backed down on plans to show the horrific effects of the Bomb in Hiroshima when it withdrew an exhibit of photos and artifacts - based on complaints from people who said it was too graphic. Odd, as that is exactly the reason they need to be exhibited!

One of the biggest things that makes a lot of Americans morons is the oxymoron that the bombs which killed tens of thousands 'saved lives'. The bombs weren't dropped to save anyone, they were dropped because the US wanted to warn the Soviets, and because they had spent billions on the Manhattan Project and investors were demanding to see the product used.

I'm glad they dropped it from the air show -- the atomic bombings of Japan are among the biggest atrocities in human history, and Americans should be ashamed.

Here is an excerpt from The Nobility of Failure by Ivan Morris, about how the Kamikaze attacks may have influenced American thinking toward use of the atomic bombs.

"Far from accomplishing its objective, the Special Attack strategy may well have contributed to one of the greatest catastrophes that ever befell the disaster-prone Japanese people, namely, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the first (and only) nuclear bombs ever used in warfare. This is hardly what the air-borne samurai had envisaged as the fruit of their dedication, yet such ironic outcomes are familiar in Japanese history, where heroic efforts have often led to results totally at variance with those intended. Suicide tactics, instead of overawing the Americans as had been confidently expected, produced indignation and rage out of all proportion to their practical importance and had much the same psychological effect as did the V-1 and V-2 rockets in England, which were similarly regarded as "unfair" weapons. This probably helped remove such qualms as President Harry Truman and his close associates may have felt about dropping atomic bombs on huge population centers at a time when Japan was already on the verge of surrender and busy with peace feelers. Furthermore the ferocity of kamikaze tactics seemed a logical culmination of Japan's wartime "fanaticism" and no doubt served to warn the Americans of the immense casualties they could expect if they proceeded with their plans to invade the home islands in the autumn of 1945. It is possible that Japan, faced with the dual threat of atomic attack and the full participation of Russia in the grand alliance, might have capitulated without any invasion at all, and that the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was therefore not only immoral but gratuitous. This we shall never know. Clearly, however, America's decision to use nuclear weapons obviated the need for an invasion -- an invasion during which the Japanese would have resorted to mass suicide tactics on a far greater scale than ever before.

wtfjapan: "If the US had to launch a ground invasion of Japan to make her surrender the death toll on both sides would have enormous (est allies dead 1-1.2million, est Japanese 5million) so was the A bombings justified, Hiroshima absolutely, although Nagasaki was not in my opinion."

The usual, mistaken, speculation. Prove what you say is true. Ah, you can't. But what CAN be proved is that Japan was on the verge of surrendering as their war of attrition was not at all popular and people were tired. The bombings were NOT justified in any way, and as has been stated were just a means of threatening Russia and showing investors what they paid so much to create.

The bombs weren't dropped to save anyone, they were dropped because the US wanted to warn the Soviets, and because they had spent billions on the Manhattan Project and investors were demanding to see the product used.

Hindsight is 20/20 and none of us today can even imagine the thought process that went on in making the decisions on whether or not to use these weapons.

We can sit and debate the causes, as we know the effects and horrors now but the airshow's insensitivity to even considering such a thing calls into account the narrow-minded views that some maybe many people still have of both of those incidents.

This shouldn't never be remember again war is not good for any side they supposed to do a new show or something better ! for unite the nation of Japan and US we live in the world ! the past is in the past we need look the future ahead !
Well that what I'm thinking :)

I don't find it hard to believe that someone proposed it for the Airshow, but to think it was a good idea???. Was there going to be a simulated mushroom cloud too? Supposedly the grownups are in charge of important events like that. Maybe next time they'll set their sights a little lower, like dropping Agent Orange in Southeast Asia.

Dropping the bomb was about dick waving at the USSR, not about ending the war with Japan. This needs to be seen for what it really was. Even back in the 1980's they were still using the "to end the war" excuse in history class. The US tried very hard to prevent images of what was done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki from making it into the media. People SHOULD be appalled.

Greg Mitchell has a great series on the issue of dropping the bombs and the play by play of events that prove this wasn't about ending the war. Why the airshow thought this was ok in the first place is stupid on their part.

Whether it was right or wrong, true or propaganda how ever people may believe, it happened and cannot be undone. People needs to acknowledge the fact to prevent it from happening in the future and it surely is not something people should feel proud of.

100,000 civilians died in the battle of Okinawa. How can anyone not believe that more of the same would have occured had there been an invasion of Kyushu? Children were being trained to fight with spears and become human bombs. There were still many high ranking officials and military leaders that wanted to continue fighting even after the 2nd bomb.

I agree with smith that we wanted to show the Russians what we had and weren't afraid to use it. And it being a $2 billion science project that we wanted to see work. But I will always maintain that lives on both sides were saved, at a terrible human cost.

Wow... That they had plans to do this is disturbing and disheartening. That it took a petition for them to remove it is sickening. No rationalization can justify it's reenactment. It is a sad chapter in world history and should not be glorified.

Why would anyone want to reenact such tragic events in our world history. If you want to bring awareness, tell the stories of the survivors and what they went through during and what they did to put their lives back together afterward. We should never do anything that might glorify these events in the young minds of children at these events.

This issue will always be controversial, as arguments will always involve hypothetical what-ifs. Did the bomb save lives? Would Japan have surrendered soon anyway, or would the US have needed to launch a land invasion of the home islands? Would the Soviets have gotten involved, perhaps dividing Japan similar to Germany/Korea? Ultimately, nobody knows

Using History as a Guide, The Japanese were planning to fight Tooth and Nail, training every Man, Woman and Child how to Pick up a Spear, and Fight to the Death... You need look no further than any of the Island hopping Campaigns. How many Japanese were taken Alive on Iwo Jima..? Tarawa? Guadalcanal..? And How many people died in the Tokyo and Yokohama Bombings..? Some of them were 160,000 a pop... And Japan was still Telling its People "Fight On!"

This isn't even a story...

You guys should be more worried about "Minister in charge of abduction issue visits Yasukuni shrine!"
They killed far far more people in China and Asia, that all the U.S. bombings combined...

danako: "How can anyone not believe that more of the same would have occured had there been an invasion of Kyushu?"

Because there is no proof it would have, only speculation. On the contrary, there is very solid proof that tens of thousands of lives were lost, and hence you have people rightly questioning the idea that 'lives were saved' by the bombings. Give me proof that even ONE life was saved -- I'll give you proof of tens of thousands to the contrary.

Surf: "Not only that, but it also should be honestly re-evaluated as to whether it was necessary, should be considered a war crime, and its long-term effects."

Agree 100%, but people don't want to hear that it was unnecessary, so they deflect and deny. I don't think the US government would EVER apologize for the bombings or even attempt to suggest it was not needed -- it would be political suicide. And yet, as one poster mentioned, an exhibition featuring the destruction from the bombs was removed because it was 'too graphic'. People literally do not want to know the consequences of such actions; they just want to think it was 'necessary' based on false speculation.

There isn't much doubt anymore about what leaders were thinking at the time of the atomic bomb droppings. Most of the relevant government documents from the US, Japan and the Soviet Union have been declassified and are publicly available. The US wanted to test the weapon and demonstrate its supremacy and leadership of the post-war world, especially to the USSR and the European powers, whom most Americans abhorred and held responsible for the outbreak of WWII. Hastening Japan's surrender was contemplated as a possible additional result, but this being a hypothetical "bonus outcome" only, it was not a key determining factor for Truman. On the contrary, the prevailing American view was that the Japanese would fight to the last soul, regardless of whether they were nuked quickly or killed slowly by conventional weapons. The inaccurate stereotype of the Japanese people as mindless, suicidal kamikazes was so widely and deeply held that an early surrender was not seen as a likely outcome of the atom bombings. After the war however this "speeding of Japan's surrender" justification was offered by Truman because the notion was more palatable to a public sick of war and its cynical calculations of horror than the geo-political considerations that were really at the heart of his decision.

The Japanese government documents reveal that Japan's leaders did not choose to surrender specifically because atomic bombs were dropped or that they feared further atomic bombings. Japan was already almost entirely destroyed by bombing and the response of the Japanese cabinet to news of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in effect "well, there go two of our last cities with another new horrible weapon". At that point in time Japan knew it was going to lose the war and was determining how to minimize the social and cultural upheaval they knew would come with being vanquished. The records show that the factor that DID force the Japanese cabinet to hastily announce their surrender to the US was the USSR's decision to enter into the Pacific war. With the looming arrival by rail in Vladivostok of Soviet troops fresh from defeating Germany, Japan knew it had two choices: 1) surrender now to the US and be occupied by it alone, or 2) keep fighting on, pointlessly, against the US and soon the USSR as well, and be occupied by both and divided like Germany and Korea. The Japanese cabinet decided choice number 1) was the lesser of two evils and communicated this to General MacArthur, urging that terms be drawn up quickly that would ensure that only the US would occupy Japan.

I say give the people who planned and wanted this reenactment a free trip to Japan to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Peace Memorial Museums, and books on the matter that aren't pro-nuke. Let them see the pieces of dripping flesh, the gutted homes, the shadows on the wall of those who were vaporized, and the rusted tricycle of a child who was simply playing when these 'necessary' bombs went off. It would probably harden their stance that it was necessary as a natural reaction to deny the truth, but in their souls they would know the bombings were entirely unnecessary and completely wrong.

There is no reason on God's Green Earth for the brutality of it all, and what amazes me is that Japan and the Japanese have been able to forgive America enough to work with her as a international trading and political partner. I am very grateful for this courtesy. The US SHOULD apologize and apologize deeply to all the Japanese people for the atrocities of the war and continue to support Japan as a way of making amends in every way possible. So glad clear heads prevailed over this immature and disgusting idea of simulating the A Bomb Dropping what a amazing show of bad taste. But knowing modern America it does not surprise me for modern America is a cheap, shallow and frankly very un respectful society and needs a LOT of improvement.

OssanAmerica < Oh sure, they needed to drop 2 A-Bombs on populated cities to show off the destructive power. I'm pretty sure the same spectacular show could have been done in a much better location for all to see without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. Japan is a pretty mountainous nation and a lot of sea and islands to choose from.

You do know the criteria for choosing the cities was a large untouched (unbombed) urban area, 3 miles in diameter that would yield maximum damage. The goal was for the weapon to be internationally recognized by making a big show and obtaining the greatest psychological effects against Japan (a big experiment with lots of guinea pigs). It might as well have been Kyoto or Kokura or any other city, just as long as it had some military significance. I wonder what they told the families with POWs (British, Dutch, Americans) in those cities along with the 1,000's of Koreans and Chinese. I have no doubt that it was the 1.6 million Soviet troops who launched a surprise attack on the Japanese forces occupying eastern Asia that made the decisive decision to surrender.

This event is pro nuclear. If they think dropping the A bomb was a victory moment in history, no wonder north korea is looking forward to drop one or more in USA, surely it will be a key solution to their misery! Personally this event really pushes my hot button.

@smith, yes my statement may be speculation but your statement that Japan was on the verge of surrendering is also speculation. If not, then exactly which day did they plan to surrender? The first bomb was dropped and there was only silence. After the second bomb, the emperor surrendered. The atomic bombs were evil, but so was the fire bombing. My mother-in-law was six years old when her city in Kyushu was firebombed. What did a six year old girl or her eight year old sister ever do that they should be bombed. I hate war but am convinced that the atomic bombs were necessary to help finish the job.

danako: "@smith, yes my statement may be speculation but your statement that Japan was on the verge of surrendering is also speculation."

Not true at all. Just because you don't know something yourself does not make it speculation, unlike what "could have happened" in some sort of alternate future.

Rather than give you all the specific links, let me just give you a list of the 400,000 that immediately popped up on a simple search. Try not to read them with the blinders on.

"My mother-in-law was six years old when her city in Kyushu was firebombed. What did a six year old girl or her eight year old sister ever do that they should be bombed."

Ah, so two major wrongs make a right in your book. Good to know.

"Kokura was the primary target for the 2nd bomb, with Nagasaki being the secondary target. And Kyoto was spared due to its historical significance."

So there you go. You admit it wasn't necessity, but politics. If it was so "necessary", why not nuke Kyoto? Answer is none of it was necessary at all, but they reckoned it would be harder to get the government to go along with US demands if they bombed a place with more historical relevance. Are you starting to see how this worked?

danako: ""My mother-in-law was six years old when her city in Kyushu was firebombed. What did a six year old girl or her eight year old sister ever do that they should be bombed.""

Oops!, sorry, I guess THREE major wrongs make a right in your books. Your mother-in-law did not deserve what happened in Kyushu, but does that mean you think the tens of thousands in Nagasaki and Hiroshima did?

"I hate war but am convinced that the atomic bombs were necessary to help finish the job."

That is the most insensitive thing I have ever heard. People whoever suggested that should by fired on the spot. When I visited the peace museum in Hiroshima I cried, it was a sad day to be an American.

@smith, Sir, I've done alot of research on this. I actually lived in the Mariana Islands where the planes were launched so I've read everything I can find on the subject. I believe that the atomic bombs were designed to end the war. The fire bombings purpose was to just kill people. I think that all bombing is evil, but if it took the most evil weapon we had to end the war I would support it.

In the final few weeks of the war the Japanese went from 3 to 13 divisions to defend Kyushu. Nearly every man in those 13 divisions would have died, along with many Americans and civilians. The Japanese leadership was so scattered, there was even an attempt to kill the emperor and keep the war going. When and where was it going to stop? And I'm sure you know all of this, but why was there no surrender after the first bomb?

My point about my mother-in-law is that she was bombed just because she was Japanese. As time goes on, this will appear more and more as genocide.

Some say this was a necessary action to end the war, but I say it was just the US taking revenge for Petal Harbour. They could have exploded the bomb on an unhabiited Japanese island or a remote area of Japan in full view of the Japanese military to get the Japanese emperor to surrender.

@Rick, I heard that that was actually an option but they worried that maybe the device wouldn't work. The Japanese were also working on an atomic bomb, and the first targets they had in mind were the islands of Saipan and Tinian where most of the B29s were launched.

The last few months at the end of the war was completely needless since Japan had contacted the Soviet Embassy in Switzerland around June for a cease fire and negotiation to end the war. The Soviets contacted the US in which the US
advised the Soviets to just ignore it. The US wanted to prolong the war since they were at the brink of developing the bomb.

Japan's condition for cease fire was that the Emperor will be spared. The US(executive office) on the other hand required to use the bomb in an effective way so they can justify the enormous cost for development to congress(the people).

smith you keep making the Japanese are the victims of WW2 when in reality the Japanese killed many more people than 3 million they lost themselves, China alone lost more than 10 million people and they certainly werent fighting the Americans then. what needs to be shown in this country is a balance, sure Japan is a victim of WW2 but they also need to show the suffering and death that the imperial army did in the name of the emperor, but thats never going to happen is it.

" And yet, as one poster mentioned, an exhibition featuring the destruction from the bombs was removed because it was 'too graphic'. People literally do not want to know the consequences of such actions; they just want to think it was 'necessary' based on false speculation."

That's the truth. And those same statist sheeple chant U-S-A as if the genocidal actions are something to be proud of.

First of all the idea for the airshow was stupid, insensitive, seems most agree on that.

But pretty sad to read so much revision of why the bombs were dropped & so much from non-Japanese, shows how much has been forgotten from WWII, sad.

To re-cap in no particular order, some of the reasons the bombs were dropped because:

to see if they would work - Correct!

to show the Russians - again Correct

to end the war - ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Folks there is no SINGLE reason the bombs were dropped there are several, ITS COMMON KNOWLEDGE!!!!!

And lets face as the fight got closer to Japan the fighting was incredibly brutal, MASSIVE casualties, anyone who thinks this wouldnt have happened if they allies had to land on the main islands is simply dreaming, ignoring what happened.

Was Japan going to surrender, sure looked that way but was it going to happen in acouple days, a year or more, there was no indication Japan was set to surrender unconditionally anytime soon UNTIL AFTER the 2bombs were dropped, simple FACTS

Were the bombs horrible yeah, again common knowledge!

Japan had been killing 100s of thousands MONTH IN MONTH OUT FOR YEARS ON END!!! Killing 20-30million.

Its sad to be reading a lot of the posts on this thread, appears the rightest views in Japan are making headway, crazy!!

in war you you dont care how many of your enemy die just that your people dont, America dropped the bomb to save American & allies lives and end the war quickly, look at the USSR they had to invade Germany to make Hitler and his Nazis surrender (Hilter didnt actually surrender he killed himself) and at a cost of 24million USSR lives, 9million German. anybody who thinks that the Japanese would have surrendered easily without the shock of the Abombs is ignorant to history and human behaviour

Really, is there still any controversy over this at all. Surely every rational human being knows this was wrong. At best it was a tragic mistake, an underestimation if the genocide it would cause, at worst it was a clear and unjustified act if genocide. I'm a fairly big fan if the US, and the US helped to make Japan the leading democracy it is today, so all credit for that, but nothing justifies an act of genocide, and we now know the US knew they had already won the war, but decided for other reasons to "test" the bombs anyway. Americans are deluding themselves if they really think it can be justified today. And attempting a reenactment is just insane...

wtfjapan: "if the positions were reversed and Japan had the Abomb instead of America do you think the Japanese would have held back on using it knowing what Japans wartime aggression was like?"

In what universe did this happen, pres tel? You continue again and again to justify acts of aggression and even terrorism by suggesting possibilities that never happened. Do you know what that makes you?

War is not a game, some of you talk as if Japanese and American lives were just numbers in a computer game to be totaled up and offset against each other, it's incredibly ignorant and immature, not to mention a very outdated way of looking at history. Japan was not a democracy, Japanese people did not vote to start a war, most of them were brutally coerced and/or brainwashed into it. Japan was a theocracy of mostly uneducated peasants. Most of those killed by the A bombs were women and children!? Seriously some of you need to wake up and grow up.

Agree 100%, but people don't want to hear that it was unnecessary, so they deflect and deny. I don't think the US government would EVER apologize for the bombings or even attempt to suggest it was not needed -- it would be political suicide.

My 2 roubles.
When a soldier fights an enemy soldier, he is a Warrior. When a soldier begins to fight civilians, he quickly becomes an animal. Aggressive animals must be exterminated. Americans demonstrated their true nature by firebombings of Japanese civilians in cities and towns of Japan and by bombing of civil population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by combat nuclear devices. They wished " to demonstrate a US military might to Soviets". Very good, we appreciated it. We also appreciated American plans of massive nuclear bombings of main Soviet cities and towns, called "Operation Dropshot" and "Operation Totality". Covering asses by pretty slogans about " fighting Communism", Americans were ready to bomb innocent people again and again.
I don't know for Japanese people, but from a viewpoint of a huge amount of my countrymen, nuclear bombings of civilians are pretty unforgivable by plain definition.

Seems many people commenting here have not seen all the historical documentation which had been released in the last decade or so (most of it by the US itself), the actual facts contradict the traditional justification as taught in allied countries. The bombs were not needed to end the war, the US government knew this, but prolonged the war in order to have a chance to use the weapon. Revenge was not so much the motivation, though it helped, it was a demonstration of US supremacy for the Russians and also a demonstration to congress and the American people of what they had achieved with their tax dollars. Even if it had been in order to end the war, even if it had saved many more lives than it took, it was STILL an act of genocide, you can't argue otherwise.

Maybe the bombing saved lives maybe it didn't nobody can say for sure but glorifying what was done during the war in an airshow..I don't feel right about that. Whether it was necessary or not the debate can go on and on but don't try to celebrate what brought devastation to so many..educate people about it yes..but don't involve it in an airshow reenactment..there are plenty of films and books to educate people with without using a celebration of fireworks and airplanes to people ooing and awing.

The bombings of Dresden and the firebombings of the rest of Japan were also genocide. Just because Japan and Germany also carried out many acts of genocide doesn't make it right for us to do so too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

smith you seriously need to look at the other side of history, japan was far from the innocent victim in WW2, truth is they committed as many attrocities to others as were committed to them, Id be thankful the Russians didnt annex Japan instead of America, otherwise Japan would be asking for more than just Kurils back today. end of the day Japan Germany lost what they started and they need to get over what happened, getting an apology/compensation from America for the A bomb is about as far off as Japan giving apology/compensation for the Asian comfort women.

@issa1 Japan had chemical and biological weapons but did not use because they thought it was inhumane, now I wonder if it was a right decision.

yes and Japan like Germany conducted human experiments on POWS/civilians Japanese involved in these experiements have spoken out about it as proof. wonder if it was the right decision for America to return Japan to her control so she could govern herself, many other countries wouldnt have been so generous.

I think it would have been a great idea. It is an example of American Science and Air Superiority. We must always remind our children what happened and more importantly WHY it happened.

There is YOUR-story and there is HIS-tory which usually goes to the WINNER*
*if there is such a thing

Why should we NOT honor the men and women of our armed forces who protected American lives by doing such an unspeakable act. It is truly devastating what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, if Japan ever attacked the U.S again I'd give the ol Enola Gay a good waxing and full tank a gas for her payload.

If the Prime Minister of Japan can visit Yasukuni Shrine then we should practice our way as well. Contrary to popular belief we do have a place in our hearts for Japan so we won't celebrate openly too much.

Not true at all. Just because you don't know something yourself does not make it speculation

OK then present your non refutable peer reviewed research that you found or someone else found that proves beyond a doubt and ends this debate around the world, particularly in America and Japan, once and for all in the history of the mankind that the Japanese had agreed to unconditional surrender before and during the atomic bombings. If that evidence exists than people around the world having been having a useless debate since the bombs were dropped.

If you do not have that definitive evidence than the argument that the Japanese were on the verge of unconditional surrender is speculation. Speculation is an educated guess/opinion based off of incomplete evidence. Just because the evidence may exist but is of yet undiscovered does not make it any less speculation, the only time it stops becoming speculation is when the evidence has been uncovered and revealed.

The truth of the matter is Operation Downfall was expected to have casualties run in the millions of people killed and wounded on both sides and was expected to take two whole years to complete. Is that speculation absolutely but you know what? That was all they had to go on, speculation. That is what makes wars so terrible is that all you have to go on is speculation.

And for the record I wish the US would have dropped the Atomic bombs in non populated areas as a show of force instead of dropping them on those cities. Heck even if those cities were purely military and no civilians I still wished they would have dropped those bombs in a non populated area.

cwhiteApr. 21, 2013 - 05:13PM JST
OssanAmerica < Oh sure, they needed to drop 2 A-Bombs on populated cities to show off the destructive power. I'm pretty sure the same spectacular show could have been done in a much better location for all to see without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. Japan is a pretty mountainous nation and a lot of sea and islands to choose from.

Not sure why you are addressing me considering my post.
If you are looking to argue as to whether the A-bombs were necessary or not, the entire debate is based on 20/20 hindsight. No one had the benefit of that in 1945.

Every generation is indoctrinated into the beliefs held true by its predecessors. Yet as to the truth of those beliefs there is never total agreement.

I am amazed that anyone in a position to make such decisions would think it a good idea to reenact the Hiroshima bombing. More than likely it was cooked up by a committee of adults, many with university degrees. Where did they get their understanding of what took place in 1945? Even if they believed that the bombing was a “good thing” what were they thinking?
Then again, imagine the air show playing out like this:
Announcer: Ladies and Gentleman please direct your attention to the east. That large silver airplane coming your way is a Boeing B-29 Stratofortress. Oh look something's falling out of the plane. Listen as the engines of the big bomber rev higher as she makes a sharp turn away. Now turn your attention to the falling object coming your way.
BANG!
Oh! Aha!
If you had witnessed this scene on August 6th 1945 from Hiroshima Japan, you, your kids, and all the people around you would have burned to ash by now. The buildings over there would have been smashed into flaming rubble and the people inside of them would be smashed and burned. The entire city surrounding you would be ripped apart and in flames and those still alive would be suffering a torturous agony. Welcome to Hiroshima and the dawn of nuclear war.
Maybe I'm being too hard on the people who thought that up. Maybe a reenactment wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Japan knew that the US had only two or three atom bombs at most and that making more would take weeks or months. As such, their early thinking after the bombings was that fighting the US in Kyushu could still be drawn out over a long enough period and be made so bloody that outright occupation could be avoided through ceasefire negotiations. But the north was almost entirely defenceless to a Soviet invasion. Once this became a distinct possibility, Japan folded and accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Emperor Hirohito cited the atom bomb as the reason for surrender in his radio address to the nation because, fearing internal revolt, it was politically more face-saving to tell the public that the nation had succumbed to a terrible and unforeseen new weapon than to admit that the leadership's grand war strategy had been a misguided gamble and utter failure. Simply put, he was at that point primarily concerned with saving his own neck.

Japan was not a democracy, Japanese people did not vote to start a war, most of them were brutally coerced and/or brainwashed into it. Japan was a theocracy of mostly uneducated peasants. Most of those killed by the A bombs were women and children!? Seriously some of you need to wake up and grow up.

It's utterly amazing at how selective people's memory's are....
As Iris Chang noted in her book, how Japanese seemingly have this Selective Amnesia...

This Air Show, the reenactment... At Best, In very poor taste..
But they decided against it, so it's NOT Even a story!

But when I read these brainwashed people...
They act like, Japan was just minding it's own business, then Bang, all of a sudden, America started dropping bombs...
There's an old expression, "There's No Use in Arguing with a Fool...." So I not even going to waste my breath...
I'm sorry....

I realize, that your white-washed Historical Textbook Revision, didn't teach YOU any of what Japan REALLY did, Beginning around say, 1900.

As a side note, Saburo Sakai (someone who knew first hand) when asked about the bombings, if they actually saved more Americans, Stated, he couldn't comment on how many Americans might have been saved by the bombings, BUT THEY CERTAINLY SAVED Millions of Japanese Lives....

You're Welcome... Enjoy that Freedom, Prosperity and Democracy, that was GIVEN to you, Courtesy of the U.S. Military!

@Chin4sailo finally somebody whos knows something about WW2 history and not a brainwashed "Japan was innocent" person. I know it may be hard for some people but I recommend you do some more reading about WW2 and the horrors it caused, youll find that everybody was victim and nobody was innocent, especially Germany & Japan.

As a few others have rightfully pointed out if any of you have REAL info Japan was set READY to unconditionally surrender than DONT KEEP IT A SECRET!!

It truly amazes me so many here seem to think that once Japan was being defeated in the theatre & the allies were on Japans door step that the allies were supposed to ground their planes, anchor their vessels & wait as long as it took for Japan to get around to surrendering........................what the................

As I said before the bombs were dropped for MANY MANY MANY MANY ReASONS, how hard is it for so many to comprehend this.

Perhaps Japan should start releasing MORE of its WWI era documents, but no they dont release much do they, gee I wonder why, something to think about.

A personal bit my mother in law was trained to weld a bamboo spear, if the allies had landed she very well might have been killed, never marry, MY WIFE never born, a few of you really need to get a better grip on what the bombs DID & what they DIDNT do.

wtfjapan: "smith you seriously need to look at the other side of history,"

You mean I need to look at the make-believe? The 'other side of history' is a bunch of made up garbage to calm the souls of the guilty.

Noliving: "OK then present your non refutable peer reviewed research that you found or someone else found that proves beyond a doubt and ends this debate around the world, particularly in America and Japan, once and for all in the history of the mankind that the Japanese had agreed to unconditional surrender before and during the atomic bombings."

I believe I left a link to 400,000 threads on the subject. If you didn't see it, that's one thing. If you don't want to, that's another.

issa: "@issa1 Japan had chemical and biological weapons but did not use because they thought it was inhumane, now I wonder if it was a right decision."

Ummm... I guess they don't mention Unit 731 in the white-washed textbooks, but you have no excuse for not knowing about it save denial. Japan carried out a LOT of chemical weapons testing, and in the most inhumane ways in human history, perhaps.

During cease fire negotiation process, there is no such thing as an "unconditionally surrender" ever. Diplomacy is thrown out of the window when either side declare this as a condition since anything and everything can be placed on the table including colonization of land slavery of the people, seizure of any and all items and so on.

It makes looting, raping, murdering and any other offense by the occupying military permissible. Head of military knows this as well as all diplomats. By demanding it only prolongs the war since there is no gain in a cease fire either to the government or the people.

wtfjapan: "@Chin4sailo finally somebody whos knows something about WW2 history and not a brainwashed "Japan was innocent" person."

Who the heck is suggesting Japan was 'innocent'? Thinking the atomic bombings were wrong does in no way mean you are saying Japan was right. That said, a whole lot of innocent people were killed in the bombings -- in fact pretty much all, since the targets were not military targets. Kind of like your mother-in-law -- or was she not innocent?

4million links to WWII doesnt mean much, if there was REAL evidence of Japans supposed surrender etc it would be HUGE news in Japan, havent seen anything so clearly all people are refering to is heresey or the old "Japan was reaching out to Russia" bit which didnt amount to much in the real world at that time & rightfully so

wtfjapan: "end of the day Japan Germany lost what they started and they need to get over what happened, getting an apology/ compensation from America for the A bomb is about as far off as Japan giving apology/compensation for the Asian comfort women."

Japan has apologized to some of the war crimes and compensated for comfort women in 1965, but Korean government didn't give penny to them and instead government used all the money for other purposes, that's why people believe they were never compensated, even though the money that was paid was more than what Nazis compensated, which they often compare with Japan. With the treaty in 1965, Korean government agreed they would no longer ask for more compensation, that is why Japanese government today doesn't want to compensate.

No one sees Japan as "innocent victims", even the Japanese don't think themselves as, they are not asking for an apology/ compensation from US. You see from anti-war movies in Japan that they criticize war and Japanese imperialism. People talk about A-bomb not because they want to look like victims, but because they are the only example of this particular weapon.

Koreans know Japan paid $$$ & their own Govt spent themselves, but they also know Japan has a real problem in regards to sincerity wrt to pretty much anything WWII related

And yes while Japanese talk about the bombs, fire bombing, you very seldom hear anything about Nanking, Batan death march, Unit 731, the 20-30million who died at the hands of Japan's IJA's, what you hear in Japan is typically rather selective unfortunately

GW,
Whenever I talked to Koreans they didn't seem to know about problems regarding compensation, and this person "wtfjapan" didn't seem to know about it, so I brought it up. If that was a common knowledge, then never mind, but what I'm wondering now is, if it was, why do people always say like Japan didn't compensated? I would have no argument if he (wtfjapan) didn't bring compensation like that and said, like, Japan has problems in regards to sincerity and attitude.

and my point earlier was that Japanese' purpose of talking about A-bomb is not to be seen as "innocent victims" or ask an apology from US. I agree Japan don't talk much of Nanking and other crimes they committed. But still, it doesn't change my point. When people talk about A-bomb, they sure, talk about how devastating it was, but they also talk about how it made end to imperialism and changed society dramatically, in a good way. It really is not to victimize Japan or blame US. They hate the bomb but people don't really put blame on US, or not only US, I say.

As far as compensation of Koreans most of that as I see it is related to the sex slave issue, which Japan doesnt admit happened, BUT set up a NON-govt organization to pay compensation to sex slaves, who mostly didnt accept as it wasnt from the J-govt, they continue to go in circles never ending.

IMO if Japan decades ago had more thoroughly admitted what they did during WWII then Japan could just tell China & Korea to PISS OFF! Frankly I wish Japan were at a point where they could do this............sadly because of Japans we're sorry for what we did, BUT we didnt do it, but we did, but PM say Japan didnt OVER & OVER again..................................Well Japan cant put this behind them & tell both China & Korea to bugger off

I think it makes sense that they had to set up non-governmental organization to compensate because if they compensated as government, it will just ignore the treay in 1965, which states that compensation from Japan related with WW2 is officially done.
Japan recognizes that there were comfort women, but what they don't know is the number of those who were forced by Japanese military and those who weren't forced but earning money and making living. Comfort women become an issue 50 years after war so there's no way to know who was forced and who wasn't, other than confessions. That is why people have different opinions in Japan and some politician apologized but some denied.
I do think that Japan should make it right for those comfort women but at the same time I think Japan is in very difficult situation.

fightforjusticeApr. 24, 2013 - 12:23PM JST
To U.S : You drop the bomb because of "Nanking Massacre"? And you used it to justify the bomb drop in Japan? I found out that there was no "Nanking Massacre"!!! It was fabrication done by China and it was convenient for you to justify the bomb you drop in Japan

The use of the A-bombs had NOTHING to do with the Nanking massacre one way or another.

It sure expedited to end the WW II and we went back to schools instead of expecting scary air raids. Sorry for Hiroshima and Nagasaki people but that was what we school children felt then, How many years ago? 68 years ago? Russia decided not to enter to Japan.

ka_chan Apr. 27, 2013 - 06:36AM JST It can be argued that the timing to attack the US, may have cost Germany the war. The US was neutral in both the European War and the Sino-Japanese War.

Don't forget that Franklin Roosevelt was decidedly a pro-British, and Churchill was his buddy. If the Britain looked like they were going down, the U.S. would have entered the war against Germany. People forget that hundreds of U.S. cargo ships had already been sunk by Germany subs while running convoys to supply Britain or Russia.

The Japanese couldn't have ignored the Philippines forever. At some point in 1942 they would have invaded that archipelago, and the U.S. would have been drawn into war just as as much justification as Pearl Harbor. The Japanese believed that war with the U.S. was inevitable, which is why they dared to wage a pre-emptive attack halfway across the Pacific. They knew it was a high-risk gamble. But the U.S. would not have been able to transform to a war economy over night, like it did after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Japan woke up the sleeping giant.

A University of Dayton associate professor who was born in a U.S. wartime detention camp for Japanese-Americans said besides the “re-enactment” being offensive, the show’s contention that the bomb that killed so many Japanese ended up saving more lives is disputable — some historians say Japan would have surrendered without the atomic bomb attacks.

Japan surrendered because Soviets entered the war. The confirmation that Hiroshima bombing was in fact, a new type of weapon was confirmed after the Impiral council decision.

If FDR could have he would have long before 1941. The American public was split with supports or Germany and England. Also, the US Congress wanted to out of the conflict. The Philippines were a US protectorate since the Spanish-American War (1898). Japan should not have an interest in the Philippines unless they wanted to dominate Asia.

Well, at some sub-atomic level I guess we have to say "We don't know." But we can say with certainty that Japan was taking so beating by August, 1945. It was one darn thing after another. All these things had a cumulative effect. Would Japan have surrendered with two nukes but no Russians? Who can say? It is all very speculative. We do have to realize that the Japanese did not know that U.S. have a limitless supply of atomic weapons. For all they knew, U.S. was ready to bomb every building in Japan with a bunch of Fat Boys.

Up to that point in time the Japanese Military had not surrendered in large numbers in any battle even when faced with overwhelming force in WWII. So one could say that the addition of Soviet Military fighting against Japan would have merely seen more stubborn resistance with very little surrendering, but does provide an excuse for not surrendering due to the atomic Bombs. The examples provided by Japanese soldiers and civilians on Guam, Saipan and Okinawa showed the difficulty in getting Japanese to surrender and would have prejudiced the US and Allied towards scepticism that the Japanese would ever surrender without some dramatic face saving event. Also the experience of having Japan plan and execute the Pearl Harbor Surprise Attack during negotiations would have made it harder for any attempted negotiations in 1945 to be taken seriously.
It is hypocrisy to criticize the Allied Bombings in Japan and Germany that killed civilians without mentioning civilians killed by Japan (in China, the Philippines, Malaysia and French Indochina) and Germany. At best you should start with there is no honor in War, it is a fight for survival, and neither side is not entirely innocent, but...

That is the right thing to do. But they should never have considered doing it in the first place. The A Bombs are a low point in human history. They serve as a marker flag of the worst of us, not the best.
Mass killing should never be celebrated.

Everyone has pretty much said it above. But I agree with everyone who says airshows are for showing off planes, not reenacting terrible events in history, regardless of the argument of whether it was necessary or not. Save it for intellectual discussion and study. It should never be considered entertainment or an excuse for celebration. Good on Clinton too for stopping the postal service producing a mushroom cloud stamp. What genius came up with that gem of an idea?

I think Ohio wanted to have more tourists to Ohio. Maybe the planner thought to show that it is not wise to attack N. Korea with our advanced nuclear bomb? With MLB in full swing in Summer. the state sure need more visitors. Maybe huge Japanese tourists might go to visit Ohio if they understand Ohio is not the hotel mecca?